Talk:List of historians

Annotate

I can see two useful ways to annotate the historians in this list; one is to clone the notes from list of people ("US historian" etc), the other is to annotate with historical specialties/notable works. The first doesn't look right, since by definition, almost all entries here will say "historian", so I'm inclined to advocate the second, as more useful when the reader is looking for "Gib-somebody who wrote about the Roman Empire". As with other lists, linking years and annotation terms is sort of useless, since those will be in the historians' articles themselves, and there is no value in having a "list of" show up in every year's and topic's "what links here". Stan 18:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That seems very sensible - no description as historian, no linking dates, and a brief note as to the historian's field of interest, eg, Burckhardt...Renaissance. Also, are we keeping to what seems to have emerged as a policy of having pre 20th century historians in date order, and modern historians in alphabetical order? Djnjwd 01:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That was somebody's idea, don't remember who. Given that prior to the 20th century, there are relatively few and so it's reasonable to scan the whole list, plus the birth order is an interesting way to view, I'm willing to give it a spin, see how it works for lookups. Stan 04:15, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since the list of modern historians seemed to be getting gigantic I started to break it down by category of history, alphabetized within the categories. Any objections? Thoughts? Alex S 15:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. However, traditional categories such as "Military History", "Naval History" or "History of France" alone just won't suffice, but it's a start. It will be a tough job though to label all those unspecified historians. --KF 15:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bad idea. As you can see from a first pass, only a minority of modern historians are so neatly categorized, and even the ones that were categorized are mistaken. For instance, just to pick one off the top of my head, Samuel Eliot Morison could be categorized under history of exploration, naval history, maritime history, and general American history. The list really would be gigantic if every historian had to be listed on it in a half-dozen different places. It would be better to attach lists of notables within a specialty directly to the article about the specialty, or to make separate lists - list of naval historians etc - if there are more than a dozen notables for the specialty. This list is more of a generic "given a partial name, find the person" index. (It's also not really that long; it ain't a "long" list until it has a thousand entries or more!) Stan 18:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I like the idea of a separate page for historians sorted by categories. I think I'll move it into "List of historians by area of study." Is there any way to just role back the page to before I started sorting, or will it have to be done manually?Alex S 01:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bring up page history, click on the date string corresponding to the version you want to roll back to, click on the edit button (you'll get a warning at this point, expected), and click on the save button. The summary line should mention that you're reverting your own change. Stan 13:56, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Listing

The modern historians are listed alphabetically while the historians of other periods are listed chronologically. Do you guys think that this is the best way to do this or should this article hold to something consistent? I think, maybe, if we have more historians in the previous periods they could be divided up into centuries alphabetically which might be more appealing. Adam Faanes 06:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is inconsistent, but I found it an interesting scheme. The purpose of alphabetization is to speed visual searches, but there are relatively few premoderns, so that consideration is less important, while early vs late middle ages is more important. By century seem artificially fine-grained, given that many lives cross century boundaries, but I could see adding late antiquity/dark ages/renaissance subdivisions, and sorting alphabetically within those. it occurs to me that premoderns will probably have to be alphabetized once all the missing people are added (1911EB lifts often don't get an entry added here, for instance). Stan 17:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Who?

• Who is Florin Mirghesiu? I've never heard of him, and neither Google nor Teoma suggest any notable historian by that name. This looks like a vanity addition or joke. Average Earthman 11:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RESPONSE to WHO? Florin Mirghesiu is a Romanian political historian. A reference may be found to his work in "Elite Configurations at the Apex of Power", edited by Mattei Dogan and published by Brill, 2003 under the auspices of the International Political Science Association. If this is a hoax it would appear to be an elaborate one inasmuch as there are several references to the gentleman although he does not appear to be a significant historian. LAWinans (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

In any case, as long as there's no article on him, he shouldn't be in the list. -- -- -- 04:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Small point

Just an small point. The Gordon Craig listed previously was the British actor and producer, not the American historian and so has been removed. The Gordon A. Craig now posted leads to the historian. However, just for future clarification, the father of historian was also named Gordon Craig, but I don't believe anybody posted an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.239.3.59 (talk) 20:12, 13/Mar/05

Perry Miller

How could anyone leave off one of the great historians of the 20th Century??? Worse still, why is there no article for him? Oh dear, I hope I don't have to write one about him. --SkeeloBob 21:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jung Chang

Jung Chang's not a trained historian, but an author writing about her life. Her husband is.

http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2005/06/26/mao_the_unknown_story/

This is a tour-de-force of reporting by Jung Chang and her husband, Jon Halliday. Weighing in at 832 pages, it is rivetingly told and voluminously documented. Professional historians (Jung Chang is not) will find details to pick over, and will challenge all that is speculative, but if half of the story that is told here holds up to scrutiny — and it is difficult to imagine the contrary — this book will dramatically change the way we see Mao. Anyone who has read Philip Short, or a host of other works on Mao will already be familiar with his penchant for self-absorption and often disastrous self-assuredness. “The Unkown Story” leaves the reader with an unblinking portrait of a megalomaniac monster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.211.93 (talk) 05:40, 29/Jun/05

After considering it for a while, I have decided that it is reasonable to call Jung Chang a biographer. Although your point about her not being a trained historian is irrelevant, as the same applies to Iris Chang, a book on a single person is a biography. In this case it is a historical work, so there's a bit of ambiguity. But Iris Chang wrote on an event, so if you really want to I think it's acceptable to make the distinction. John Smith's 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

church historians

I see Eusebius of Caesarea is not on the list, but curiously, my recent 1911 EB Dietrich of Nieheim is. A separate category "Category:church historians" or the such is probably in order, as well as a distinct list. Bede would be another candidate. Luidprand of Cremona, who documented much of the pornocracy period of the Papacy would be another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthAve (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28/Jul/05 (UTC)

You are welcome to add any missing historians to this list. Adam Bishop 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"ancient historians"

When one of the titles is "ancient historians" this is confusing, because someone like Moses Finley can be called an ancient historian, whilst here it seems to mean people who were historians in ancient times. Could i suggest a change to "Historians of the Ancient Period" or "Ancient Sources" or something? Any good suggestions? Pjmc 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This list is too long

Too long for one page. Too hard to use. george 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work, but we should organize this using categories. With categories, the list would build itself. --Metzenberg 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why does 'This is a list of historians.', at the start of the article, contain a link to the same page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.45.202 (talk) 01:45, 8/Jul/06

David Irving

In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. It said: "It is incorrect to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author." Ingram, Richard. "Irving was the author of his own downfall", The Independent, February 25, 2006. The same point was made during Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books: "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ‘historian’ to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ‘historical writer’ instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian." Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, "Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge", 2000, Chapter 6. During Irving's criminal trial in Austria, State Prosecutor Michael Klackl said: "He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history." Traynor, Ian. "Irving jailed for denying Holocaust", The Guardian, February 21, 2006.

Can people please stop trying to deny, err, "revise" the truth by adding Irving to this list? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So long as Irving is referred to as a "revisionist historian" with a link to Holocaust Denial we are not giving him unwarranted credibility. Philip Cross 21:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a "revisionist historian", he's a Holocaust denier, and you sully the names of legitimate revisionist historians when you associate Irving's denial with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that, as far as I am aware, he holds no degree in history, nor has he taught history at any university, nor has he published any articles in peer-reviewed journals. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All quite true as far as your second contribution is concerned, though "nor has he taught history at any university" would exclude Andrew Roberts, and many others, from the list.

Irving is a repulsive and sinister figure, but his early books did acquire a legitimate reputation (according to the profiles), and he is occasionally described as knowing more about Nazi Germany than anyone alive, despite the obvious caveat, by serious people: he is defended by the military historian John Keegan. Justifiably losing a libel action against Deborah Lipstadt does not change these facts.

I am mildly nauseous whenever I hear Irving's voice, and do not defend him, but am merely arguing for the legitimacy of including him on this list. I am not saying that "British histoian", the iniial tag for Irving on the list, would be a satisfactory description of him because that would not acknowledge his ambivalence presence on the list. Philip Cross 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philip, maybe we need a section for discredited historians but I think it would be dishonest not to include him at all, while understanding that some people think someone who fakes history to fit their ideological viewpoint isnt a historian it just isnt that straightforward. As Eric Hobsbawm said, hsitorian have more responsibility than nuclear physicists to promote good or evil, and while Irving's views on rascism are criminal his making history fit his ideology is very common amongst historains and I need tio be convinced their are reasons other than his beliefs to preclude him from this list, SqueakBox 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to keep repeating this old memo ad nauseam, regardless of this, the same Telegraph calls Irving "controversial historian" as of 2006 [1]. As somebody already said, the term "historian" is not a badge of honour that can be given and taken away. Irving will not be first nor last who has manipulated historical evidence to suit his views. Hell, whole generations have done just that. --Magabund 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Late to the debate, but Irving absolutely must be included in this list. Anything else would be adishonest form of censorship, and wikipedia does not censor - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Shiono Nanami

I think the article should add Nanami Shiono, a Japanese female historian, in the list. She is a highly influential Romanian historian in Asia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.146.196.241 (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Neocorus (medieval, Germany)

Hi, here's a potential addition to the medieval section: Neocorus (real name: Johann Adolf Köster/Johannes Adolph Köster), ca. 1550-1630, pastor and teacher in Büsum, Germany, who chronicled the medieval history of Dithmarschen during the late 16th century. tameeria 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

The list of contemporary historians of Germany and modern Europe is quite idiosyncratic. Why does it include a complete non-entity, such as Jeffrey Herf, who aside from self-promotion has written a few second-rate books and has had no substantial effect on the field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.64.219 (talk) 16/Jan/07

John S. Curtiss

Can anyone please help develop the stub above and incorporate him in his proper place in Wikipedia? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Classify them by their Date of Birth

That's my personal practice at home regarding some subjects of research - like the authors for, and against, the Protocols of Zion. I also do this, for myself, for notable mathematician. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gov. William Bradford - America's First Historian??

Why is there no mention of Gov. William Bradford? He was the first historian of the new America. There are countless reference to his early works, of which, was a detailed journal on the first 30 years of the Plymouth Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.160.206.23 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Linked Historians

The Following are some "Red Linked" Historians that should really have Wiki Articles done for them, or at least stubs. I've started some and also correctly linked others. In all I've got rid of most of the Red Links in one form or another and still need to do a bit of work.

This is not a lone venture on my part … no Wiki project is a lone venture, but a team effort. The aim is to remove red links in the Wiki.

• Mary Wilhelmine Williams
• Thatcher, Oliver J.,
• Ferdinand Scheville, —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSTemple (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Henry Sills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.33.89 (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Charles Downer Hazen,
• Geo Chil-bu, (6th century), Silla historian
• Yi Mun-jin, (7th century), Goguryeo historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSTemple (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your aim is to remove red links in the Wiki? I admire your energy. What about List of curlers. There are hundreds like that.S711 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I remove red linked names from lists because they are unverifiable, and a Wiki Article thus verifies them. Please remember this is an encyclopaedia that not everyone is just using to edit, but will be use for study, research and knowledge. If there are red link names, they are not useful. What if there is a red link name dkhdhd jhfmhfd or how about Mickey Mooouse in a list, do we leave these names? This makes a mockery of the Wikipedia and makes it a dream for vandals. Who vets red link names in lists? Only a Wiki article, backed by References makes for a solid encyclopaedia. My aim is not to make a mass of pointless edits, but to help, along with others, in making for a sound useful Wikipedia. I do not claim I am right and others are wrong, but I have explained my actions. --BSTemple (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no comparison between an obvious vandal red link and a good faith red link that just does not have its own article yet. For the most part red links function as invitations to people with knowledge of the subject to start the needed article. Which is why I think that, rather than indiscriminately removing all of them, it should be decided on a case-to-case basis which of them qualifies for removal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Who decides? A red link name within a well-referenced article is fine, and that is where a red link should be as the referenced article has verified the name, which encourages an article to be written on that person (assuming they are seen to be notable enough from the article). In lists, that is another matter. --BSTemple (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note. In topic/historian lists, it is NOT useful to include Red link names. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists esp. 5. Appropriate topics for lists - 5.1 Lists of people, which clearly states "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." Many of these names do not have a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article, indeed many are not even verified to be even in the list in the first place let alone an article done. Also look at WP:NOT#DIR. An exception is a list of people by nationality/ethnicity, NOT their profession. When you get to professions etc, then these must be verifiable and not just put up on someones whim.--BSTemple (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

romilla thapar

she is one of the useless historians of the world. Her theory of chandragupta supposed origin was mocked by many and i think adding a name of historian like her can be treated as an insult to other great historian.

for her GUPT(in hindi) written as GUPTA in english and therefore Chandragupta was vaishya do you think we need a historian like her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that she does not qualify as a historian worthy of mention in this list, in fact she seems to have an admirable list of credentials. There may be dispute about some of her work, I don't know as this is not my field of expertise, but that does not in any way disqualify her as a historian for this list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Inga Clendinnen?

Inga Clendinnen has a page at Wikipedia which lists her as a contemporary historian. She's written several books, been employed as an academic historian and received several awards. I'd like to see her added to the page listing historians under the "Modern" section. She's from Australia and has worked with Australian history (Dancing With Strangers) but she has also written about the Aztecs and the Holocaust as well as essays and a memoir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_Clendinnen

Becky Lindroos (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sports-historians ?

I just fastily, looked through this whole list and couldn't find any mentioned as historians with sports as main area (allthough there could be some, since I didn't look up all internal-links). Why, aren't there any who is classified as good enough for Wikipedia to be included as such ? Migrant (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC) My question is a general one about sports-historians, but some have organized themselves in this one International Society of Olympic Historians ? Migrant (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

literary historians

In this edit, Zoupan (talk · contribs) deleted Jovan Deretić with the edit summary: literary historian. Can anyone explain to me why a literary historian doesn't belond on the list? -- -- -- 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. since no one answered me, I reinserted Jovan Deretić. -- -- -- 21:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the many thousands of literary historians belong to literature departments and operate in a different intellectual world from what the article is calling "historians." Likewise we exclude theological historians and historians of philosophy, who have their own domains of learning and interaction. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- -- -- 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing?

The following historians are considered masters in their fields and each has an entry in Wikipedia but were omitted from the List:

W. E. H. Lecky (1838-1903) author of "History of England in the 18th Century", "History of the Rise & Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe", and "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne".

Michael Grant (1914-2004) author of classical history, including "World of Rome", "The Ancient Historians", "The Twelve Caesars", "From Alexander to Cleopatra", "The Rise of the Greeks", and "The Classical Greeks". LAWinans (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add them yourself. -- -- -- 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Where, pray tell, is Catharine Macaulay, the great eighteenth century historian, sometimes said to be the first major female historian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.22.230 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of historians by area of study into List of historians

Redundant content fork. The main list is categorised by area of study. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Just today, I came by List of historians by area of study because I had the name of the historian I needed on the tip of my tongue and it was extremely useful to narrow it down with this list. So, don't merge. XavierItzm (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

add Remini (1921 – 2013) [copy ex Andrew Jackson:Talk 9-14-2022

On Robert V Remini: Here's a review of Remini's work in American Historical Review Oct 1998 p 1319: "The three biographies [by Remini on Jackson, Clay and Webster] are so massive, so comprehensive that, taken together, they provide future scholars with a storehouse of knowledge for the political history of the first half of the nineteenth century. Remini's studies of Clay and Webster are especially valuable because he is the first scholar to produce biographies of the two based on the recently completed modern editions of their papers. For this book, he has also been able to draw on the many studies of Webster published in the past thirty years...." His biography of Webster, published in 1997 as Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time, won the D.B. Hardeman Prize. [cite {{cite web|title=Recipients of the D. B. Hardeman Prize|url=http://www.lbjlibrary.org/page/foundation/initiatives/recipients-of-the-d-b-hardeman-prize%7Cwebsite=LBJ Foundation| [/cite] The review by Richard Latner states:

for specialists, Remini's thoroughness and scope make this work an essential resource on Webster and the indispensable, standard biography....In [his] multivolume, award-winning Jackson study, subject matter and style meshed harmoniously. Indeed, it was easy to overlook the enormous erudition and scholarship behind Remini's bold interpretive assertions and dramatic presentation....The major strength of Remini's biography [of Webster] is certainly its thoroughness. This is a 'life and times' work, and given the significance and scope of Webster's career, it is no minor accomplishment to render an engaging portrait in one volume. [cite Richard Latner, "Latner on Remini, 'Daniel Webster: The Man and His Times' "(H-Pol August, 2000) online

Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Medical book 1900s

Central midwives board 165.165.120.3 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)